The Inky Blows It On "9/11"

This editorial appeared in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer:

Can viewers at least watch the ABC miniseries about 9/11, instead of having someone decide for them whether it's an informative "docudrama" or a partisan hack job?

ABC and its parent company, Disney, shouldn't cave in to critics who want the network to cancel the five-hour movie, The Path to 9/11, scheduled to air tomorrow and Monday nights. These critics include Senate Democratic leaders, who are worried that the miniseries will portray Clinton administration officials unfairly in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. They wrote a heavy-handed letter to Disney CEO Robert Iger, reminding him of his duty "as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves" to promote open, accurate discussions of political ideas.

In other words, in the name of openness, please cancel this dramatic production that we haven't seen. It's the same lame argument that conservatives raised in high dudgeon in 2003 over CBS's unflattering miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Unfortunately, in that case, CBS and its commercial sponsors did cower in the face of an orchestrated conservative campaign. The network dumped the miniseries onto cable channel Showtime, where it was seen by a much smaller audience. (But it did at least see the light of day, and the republic is still standing.)

Sight-unseen critics of the 9/11 miniseries should be honest about their motivations. There is an anxious partisan calculation here. That is: If a Democratic administration gets some of the on-screen blame for failing to capture bin Laden, it could hurt Democrats at the polls this November. But if a movie could do that, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 would have defeated Bush in 2004.

Most Americans understand that the failure to capture or kill bin Laden did not start with one Democratic president or end with a Republican one. The independent 9/11 Commission's report makes clear that many federal agencies under various administrations, from the CIA to the Pentagon, and both political parties in Congress, shared responsibility for failing to recognize the danger rapidly and pursue a coordinated, sustained campaign against al-Qaeda.

The report found that Clinton was "deeply concerned" about bin Laden and was fed daily reports about his suspected location. But he wasn't effective in marshaling a comprehensive U.S. response to a series of al-Qaeda attacks. When Bush took office in January 2001, he did not make al-Qaeda a top priority.

The producer of a made-for-TV movie should have license to portray these broad conclusions in dialogue or actions that were not so compact or tidy in real life. View this miniseries for what it is: a dramatization. The facts from the 9/11 report have been before us for a long time. Viewers can decide for themselves if the treatment is fair.

For starters, the members of the august Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board should read this detailed critique by Jamison Foser of Media Matters for America (via Atrios).

To compare "The Path to 9/11" to the telemovie about the Reagans is ridiculous; as far as I know, there were no "made up" scenes in the movie - I don't recall hearing about a scene, for example, where Tip O'Neill heard about the Iran-Contra scandal and told Reagan it was OK. The movie dealt primarily with the personal lives of the Reagans; the objections I remember hearing about had to do with that. Surely even the Inquirer must realize that the catastrophic events of almost five years ago are just a bit more important and deserve better treatment.

It is equally stupid to compare this to "Fahrenheit 9/11" because everyone had an opportunity to see the movie. In the case of "The Path to 9/11," nine hundred copies of the film were sent to conservative-sympathetic bloggers and other media types while those who were chastised in the movie were refused that same opportunity. But now, literally hours before the movie is scheduled to air, the network says that the film is being edited..??

The Inquirer editorial also failed to note the totally fictitious scene of Sandy Berger refusing to allow the CIA to capture Osama bin Laden. I would say that that's a big reason why Senate Democratic leaders (quoting the paper directly here) wrote "a heavy-handed letter" to Disney CEO Robert Iger.

Congratulations to the Inquirer editorial board for totally towing the conservative line, yanking on its leash held by Brian Tierney (pictured) and Philadelphia Media Holdings (keeping up the inglorious tradition of right wing-friendly commentary as demonstrated here).